Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific atheism
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete, copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Scientific atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is all covered by the Atheism page. Appears to be an essay. Jimmi Hugh 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, someone's blog entry is not an article. --Kinu t/c 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Totally POV, almost incomprehensible, already covered under athiesm, original research. - superβεεcat 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete POV fork, unencyclopedic. And on top of that, a blatant copyvio of . Editor has been warned. Blueboy96 00:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, but I can't figure out for what. Though, with statements such as "Our beliefs are as follows", this is neither an article nor an essay - it's a manifesto. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete original research, POV, is already covered under athiesm and probably a copyvio. Oysterguitarist 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, noted copyvio. Added the {{db-copyvio}} template with URL, let's call it a day and go home. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would hate to accidently support this and stop it getting deleted as fast as possible, but isn't that his own blog he copied if from? -- Jimmi Hugh 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's still a copyvio, since unless I missed something he hasn't released it on his blog per the GFDL. --Charlene 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would hate to accidently support this and stop it getting deleted as fast as possible, but isn't that his own blog he copied if from? -- Jimmi Hugh 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete As an atheist Wikipedian, I am offended at the lack of quality and transparent POV of this shoddy essay. VanTucky (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)- Delete WP:NOT doesn't actually cover "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your political diatribe". Maybe it should. --Charlene 00:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it does. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Blueboy96 00:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete due to loads of OR and seems to have been some sort of essay or editorial work--JForget 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.